The Supreme Court has recently granted permission for a liver donation from a person to their 3-year-old cousin, who is battling a chronic liver disease. 

During the Court proceedings, the Court mentioned that this decision should not serve as a precedent for any future cases.

The Court's involvement arose when the authorization committee, operating under the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act of 1994, refused to approve the liver donation, citing the restriction outlined in Section 9 of the Act.

The issue at hand emerged because the patient and their parents hold Overseas Citizens of India status. Sub-Section 1A of Section 9 of the Act mandates prior approval from the Authorization Committee in cases where either the donor or the recipient is a foreign national.

Section 9 of the Act specifies that only a "near relative" of the recipient is allowed to donate organs. The Act defines a "near relative" as someone who falls within the categories of "spouse, son, daughter, father, mother, brother, sister, grandfather, grandmother, grandson, or granddaughter." Notably, the definition of "near relative" does not include a "cousin."

Given these specific circumstances, the current writ petition was filed with the objective of securing instructions to permit the liver transplant by the second petitioner, who is also the donor. This action is intended to safeguard the life of the child (the first petitioner) and uphold their fundamental rights under Article 21 of the SeConstitution of India.

Upon reviewing the report of the Authorization Committee, the Court observed that a comprehensive evaluation had been conducted concerning two key aspects. Firstly, the connection between petitioner No. 1 and petitioner No. 2, and secondly, the intentions of the latter in agreeing to be a donor.

Additionally, the Court took note of the fact that while the report did not explicitly provide reasons for the parents' inability to donate the liver, it granted an exemption to the parents due to the availability of a suitable donor.

Earlier, the Court grants the petitioners to file the necessary application with the Authorisation committee and requested the committee to consider it while assembling on the same day itself.

Subsequently, on the following day, the hospital's counsel submitted that the donor had not yet undergone counseling. As a result, the proceedings were adjourned.

Accordingly, the Court while disposing off the petition, directed the operation to be conducted.

Case Title: Rajveer Singh Vs. Union of India, Diary No.- 45541 - 2023

Click here to Read/Download the Order